Ludwig Von Mises Implies Being a Savage Animal Is Ok!

"Nothing, however, is as ill founded as the assertion of the alleged equality of all members of the human race."~Ludwig Von Mises, Liberalism, p 28

I was wondering why the Tea Party Libertarian types were surrounded by anarchists. This quote by Ludwig Von Mises shows what an anarchist he was. Or at least he was an anarcho-capitalist. Read it carefully:

"Man is born an asocial and antisocial being. The newborn child is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and later of other people FORCE HIM to acknowledge the advantages of social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior." ~Ludwig Von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 241

I saw that posted in a comment section of the Daily Bail. The entire comment section is interesting reading. Rand and Rothbard don't come across so well either. Turns out Rand was a friend and Rothbard was a student. Anarchists use libertarianism to hide their true intent or is it the other way around? It is interesting that Ron Paul says that anarchists hover around his campaign. He seemed delighted. I don't know why. I realize there are some peaceful anarchists but most are not.

Government does force upon children the necessity of civilization. That does not mean we have to follow our leaders like sheep. But Mises seems to delight in anti socialization and savagery like that is some kind of birthright. If you are anti social you are perhaps more capable of dividing yourself from the riff raff and more capable of doing bad things to them.

As the comment section continued one guy says private property only reflects power to control. While that is true for many powerful people, the idea that it is essential for people just wanting to raise a family without the rent going up is absurd.

I have decided that you can't trust a political philosopher. They are, frankly, very creepy. Some of them are racist as well. Putting that philosophy and racism in the hands of libertarians is like giving a match to a three year old.

This does not mean we have to bow down and trust our government and trust the Fed. You just don't have to be a libertarian wacko to not trust the Fed as I recently wrote. It is interesting that a few commentators and others I have heard, speak of subprime as being for those who are primarily not white. I don't believe that was the case at all. The article has a chart which every Tea Party and libertarian should read. The chart reveals the universal nature of the private MBS lending, which far surpassed the CRA. Subprime in California was for homes that reached over 400 thousand dollars and more. Median home price in California at the height of the bubble was over 1/2 MILLION dollars.

And if banks took advantage of other races, that was a bad thing! If banks admit to taking advantage of financial weakness on the part of minorities or any citizen of the United States, they should be sent straight to jail. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim racial minorities had some sort of moral failing and then claim they didn't take advantage of them.

So here is the current Wall Street scam, take only part of the blame. That is what Wall Street is aiming for. If they are 90 percent at fault for the housing bubble, which I believe is true, then they should all be in jail. But if they can say they are only partly at fault, but that those who bought too much house are really mostly at fault, they get off the hook.

Truth is, the banks offered the products, and they were defective products just like a lemon car. They were defective and they were doomed, and the banks pulled the underwriters who were responsible for making sound loans. So, the bankers were predatory and hurtful, and yet they are rewarded while everyone else suffers. Von Mises and his band of misfit philosophers would have been so proud. Bankers were savages and justify their evil intent by exalting Mises to godhood, for giving them license to steal.

But the worst knowledge Mises imparted to the bankers was that the bankers could just plead that those hurt by the bad lending were envious, were committing class warfare, and were just outdone by smarter folks. That is the essence of Ludwig's teachings in his acknowledgment of class differences, but certainly it is a perversion of that teaching isn't it? Or are the ends justified by any means for the big brains under the Mises system?

At the very least we can say that Mises gave us some really mixed signals that reinforced the attack on main street and gave an intellectual backstop to justify the attack. I remember W coming to power and saying that there was an America, his America, and another America that was well, not quite his America. Mises reinforced the lack of community that this philosophy spawned. The division that resulted is Mises and Rand and Rothbard all the way.

That is the new Republican Party, a party of division. It certainly wasn't the party of Ike.

To advocate for one, unified America, Mises would say one has to somehow be a socialist. And yet, Mises gave intellectual license to folks who did not distribute according to need, but rather became the robber barons of our age. T he robber barons distributed alright, but it wasn't by socialism. It was by crony capitalism.

But we know crony capitalism on steroids rose up in Germany and in Italy. Mises being born of Jewish parents should have seen what this class divisiveness could bring and he rightly feared the Germans. But, Mises was, when all is said and done, just a dirty and divisive guy who didn't seem to see the danger of fascism lurking in his very own philosophy.